Personally, I have no objection to the nominee, even though I might’ve wished it was somebody else. She is relatively inexperienced, but…
ACB has clerk's for an appeals court judge and Supreme Court Justice, been a law professor, and sat on the 7th Court of Appeals for two years a rs how much more experience should be required?
"Relatively inexperienced." In terms of judicial experience prior to appointment to the court, here's how it looks:
Sotomayor: 17 years
Alito: 16 years
Breyer: 14 years
Kavanaugh: 12 years
Gorsuch: 11 years
Roberts: 2 years
Thomas: 1 year
Kagan: 0 years
Obviously there are other kinds of experience that make for a good justice. But in terms of judicial experience, I don't think it would be unfair to say that she is "relatively inexperienced"--relative to the amount of judicial experience that the majority of the current justices had when they were appointed. (BTW, her judicial experience is actually closer to 3 years, so that puts her right about at the middle relative to the rest of the court.)
She will also be (if confirmed), with the exception of Thomas, the youngest appointee on the court. So "relatively inexperienced" in that sense as well.
If I were you, I'd just accept Pr. Austin's acknowledgement that he has no objection to her appointment, though he would prefer someone else. That's how it's supposed to be, isn't it?
One question bandied about is the impact on the Court of so little diversity of background.
Four of the current justices graduated from Harvard Law School and the other four from Yale. I am happy to see a nominee who would break that mold. Judge Barrett graduated from Notre Dame.
Five of the eight justices were born in NY, NJ, or DC. (Justice Breyer was born in California and spent most of his pre-DC professional life in Boston. Justice Thomas was born in Georgia and has spent nearly all his professional life in DC. Only Justice Gorsuch was born and worked extensively outside the Acela corridor (in Denver).) Judge Barrett would add a bit of geographical diversity, having spent most of her adult life in the midwest.
Six of the eight justices served on Courts of Appeals in Acela corridor (Breyer in the First Circuit (Boston), Sotomayor in the Second Circuit (NYC), Alito in the Third Circuit (Philadelphia), and Roberts, Thomas, and Kavanaugh on the DC Circuit (DC, obviously). Justice Gorsuch served on the Tenth Circuit (Denver). Justice Kagan had never been a judge, but by all accounts is an excellent jurist (setting aside whether someone agrees with a particular ruling). Judge Barrett, from the Seventh Circuit (Chicago), would add a pinch of diversity on this front, but not much more.
All of the justices (and Judge Barrett) have spent the bulk of their careers in government (either as lawyers for the government or as judges), in academia, or both. Judge Barrett would add no diversity on this front.
Some have pondered whether the Supreme Court would benefit from the appointment of a couple justices from a wider array of law schools and with at least a bit of variety in their professional backgrounds. To be sure, academic or judicial experience equip a justice to consider and address the kind of arguments made by appellate advocates in a way that other professional experiences might not. But might perspectives shaped by these other experiences help inform sound decision making?
I'm not certain but am inclined to think so. Sadly, I don't expect to see any president break the mold any time soon. The various interest groups likely would view such appointments as fraught with unacceptable uncertainty regarding how a prospective justice might rule.